Advertisement

Instructional Science

, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 89–110 | Cite as

Merit pay: A case study in a California school district

  • Naftaly S. Glasman
Article

Abstract

This paper is a report on a study which examined the possibility of instituting a merit pay plan in a small school district in California. The paper is a preliminary investigation aimed at focusing attention on the substantive issues of merit pay and their effect on instructional performance. The first part of this paper summarizes merit pay in business and industry, merit pay in education, merit pay plans in California schools, and characteristics of the district under study. In the second part, practical difficulties in the district under study are described and analyzed. The third part constitutes the enumeration and examination of conditions which are required for the development and implementation of a merit pay plan in the district. Due to the difficulties in accumulating raw data, decisions on methodologies were made during the process of data collection. These methodologies are described throughout the paper.

Keywords

Data Collection School District Preliminary Investigation Practical Difficulty Substantive Issue 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alkin, M. C. (1972). “Accountability Defined”, Evaluation Comment. 3.3, pp. 1–5.Google Scholar
  2. Beisel, J. J. (1972). “Recognition of Professional Preparation”, Personnel Journal. 51.2, pp. 134–137.Google Scholar
  3. BrowderJr., L. H., ed., (1973). Emerging Patterns of Administrative Accountability. Berkeley, California: McCutchan.Google Scholar
  4. Bruno, J. E. (1971). “Compensation of School District Personnel”, Management Science, p. 4328.Google Scholar
  5. California Legislature (1971). “Article 5.5: Evaluation and Assessment of Performance of Certificated Personnel”, in Assembly Bill No. 293, Chapter 361.Google Scholar
  6. Coleman, J. S. (1971). “New Incentives for Schools”, in J. W., Guthrie, and E., Wynne, eds., New Models for American Education. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  7. Coombs, P. H., and Hallak, J. (1972). Managing Educational Costs. New York: Oxford University.Google Scholar
  8. Evans, W. A. (1970). “Pay for Performance: Fact or Fable”, Personnel Journal. 49.9, pp. 726–731.Google Scholar
  9. Frey, P. W. (1973). “Comparative Judgment Scaling of Student Course Ratings”, American Educational Research Journal. 10.2, pp. 149–154.Google Scholar
  10. Glasman, N. S. (1972). “A Study of Merit Pay: Report to the Hope School District Board of Trustees”, Santa Barbara, California, 146 pp.Google Scholar
  11. Glass, G. V. (1972). “Statistical and Measurement Problems in Implementing the Stull Act”, paper delivered at the Conference on the Stull Act, Stanford University, October 12, 1972.Google Scholar
  12. Greene, R. J. (1972). “Appraising the Performance of the Data Processing Employee”, Personnel Journal. 51.10, pp. 757–761.Google Scholar
  13. Haar, T. A. V. (1972). “Performance Standards for Managers”, Personnel Journal. 51.1, pp. 27–41.Google Scholar
  14. Heier, W. D. (1970). “Implementing an Appraisal by Results Program”, Personnel. 47.6, pp. 24–32.Google Scholar
  15. James, H. T. (1972). “Some Thoughts on Accountability”, The School Administrator. 8, pp. 7–10.Google Scholar
  16. Klein, S. P., and Alkin, M. C. (1972). “Evaluating Teachers for Outcome Accountability”, Evaluation Comment. 3.3, pp. 5–11.Google Scholar
  17. Kleinman, J. (1963). “Merit Pay—The Big Question”, NEA Journal. 52, pp. 42–44.Google Scholar
  18. Krasno, R. M. (1972). “Accountability and Research on Teacher Effectiveness”, Administrator's Notebook, 21.1, pp. 1–4.Google Scholar
  19. Marshall, T. H. (1939). “The Recent History of Professionalism in Relation to Social Structure and Social Policy”, Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science. 5, p. 325.Google Scholar
  20. Patterson, W. N. (1969). “Teacher-Ranking: A Step Toward Professionalism”, The Educational Forum. 33.2, pp. 169–173.Google Scholar
  21. Redling, E. T. (1972). “The Determinants of Management Compensation”, Personnel Journal. 51.8, pp. 557–564.Google Scholar
  22. Robinson, D. W., ed., (1970). “Eight Articles on Accountability”, Phi Delta Kappan. 52.4.Google Scholar
  23. Sciara, F. J., and Jantz, R. K., eds., (1972). Accountability in American Education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  24. Smith, J. V. (1972). “Merit Compensation: The Ideal and the Reality”, Personnel Journal. 51.5, pp. 313–326.Google Scholar
  25. Templeton, I. (1972). “Merit Pay”, Educational Management Review Series. 10, 9 pp.Google Scholar
  26. Tolor, A. (1973). “Evaluation of Perceived Teacher Effectiveness”, Journal of Educational Psychology. 64.1, pp. 98–104.Google Scholar
  27. Weissman, R. (1969). “Merit Pay — What Merit?” Education Digest. 34.9, pp. 16–19.Google Scholar
  28. Zimmerer, T. (1970). “The Promotion Illusion, and Investigation of the Promotability of Executives Based on an Analysis of Both Self Ratings and Superior Ratings”, Management of Personnel Quarterly. 9.4, pp. 8–16.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Elsevier Scientific Publishies Company 1974

Authors and Affiliations

  • Naftaly S. Glasman
    • 1
  1. 1.Graduate School of EducationUniversity of CaliforniaSanta Barbara

Personalised recommendations